Wikipedia:Peer review/Coinage Act of 1965/archive1

Coinage Act of 1965

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FAC in due course.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from BB

Well, here we go. Not the easiest reading for non-numismatists, I have to say, but I've done me best – sorry if at times the review is a mite superficial:

Lead

• "government stocks of silver were being rapidly reduced, and might run out by 1968" – are you sure of tense consistency here? It seems slightly off to me.

It looks OK to me. Possibly it is an ENGVAR thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Dimes and quarters": believe it or not, some (lots) of us don't know what they are. Appropriate pipe-links would assist us.
• The final sentence is enigmatic. It reads as though the Eisenhower dollar was silver – is that the case?

Background

• I am struggling with the sentence: "The metal in a silver dollar was worth more as metal than as money above $1.292929 per troy ounce; the smaller coins would be attractive for the melting pot above $1.38 per ounce". Does it mean "more as metal than as money when the price rose above $1.292929 per troy ounce? And what is the reason for the differential between the dollar and the small coins?

Coin shortage

• I'm not really clear as to why a coin shortage should have arisen in the late 50s and early 60s. If I read correctly, the Mints were working at full capacity but still couldn't meet demand. Was there some particular economic factor at work? I can understand that people wished to hang on to their half-dollars, but why the reluctance to part with the rest?
• "Clad coinage" worth a pipe
• Strictly speaking, "Great Britain" is a geographical entity rather than a nation (although the term is often misused as such). "United Kingdom" would be safer'

Legislation

• "Were any to be struck, the silver dollar would be unaffected, but there were no further plans to issue any". The first five words could easily be taken as referring to the coins mentioned in the previous sentence, so I'd suggest a minor rephrasing to avoid any ambiguity.
• "depleted by 1968" – did he mean "exhausted"? The bullion was being depleted all the time.
• Minor, but two successive sentences begin "Johnson..."
• "with the opponents being..." – the word "with" is superfluous

Provisions

• My mind tended to glaze over with the legal phraseology, so I skipped to Aftermath

Aftermath

• A "holiday season" beginning in November is strange to Europeans. Perhaps specify Thanksgiving?
• "stated that that many quarters" a bit clumsy. Possibly "stated that this number of quarters..."
• I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph, which I can't reconcile with what I read in the lead, concerning the Eisenhower dollar.

On presentation, a few coin images will certainly brighten things up. I'd also suggest columnising the reflist. Otherwise neatly and professionally done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've followed all of your suggestions. Sorry for my long neglect of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)